Authoritarianism’s Bad Year

Putin bungled his war with Ukraine, and China and Iran contended with massive protests.

By
53
Vladimir Putin. (Photo by Mikhail Metzel/Sputnik/AFP/Getty Images.)

As 2022 draws to a close, it’s worth celebrating that this hasn’t been a good year for authoritarianism.

This might seem Pollyannish. After all, just last month, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance issued a report concluding that democracy is in decline while authoritarianism is deepening. Freedom House cataloged “The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule” back in February. “The global order is nearing a tipping point,” the nonprofit declared, “and if democracy’s defenders do not work together to help guarantee freedom for all people, the authoritarian model will prevail.” A Pew study of global attitudes concluded in May: “As democratic nations have wrestled with economic, social and geopolitical upheaval in recent years, the future of liberal democracy has come into question.”

I don’t dispute any of that, with one caveat: The future of liberal democracy is pretty much always an open question, because liberal democracy is always under threat from the authoritarian temptation. Authoritarianism comes naturally to humans, while liberalism has to be taught—and fought for. Whenever liberal democratic capitalism seems to stumble—which is often—authoritarianism suddenly seems like a viable alternative (I wrote a whole book about this).

Sadly, authoritarianism can sound appealing in the abstract, but people tend not to like it when they actually experience it. And while it often works very well for the authoritarians themselves—Vladimir Putin may, in fact, be the world’s richest man—it fails for the average citizen.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
53
By
Comments (53)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “ But it isn’t failure per se that undermines authoritarianism. Every system is flawed, every government makes mistakes. It is the inability to admit and remedy mistakes that is authoritarianism’s Achilles’ heel.”

    Precisely. Time and competition and circumstance level even the most hardened and powerful regimes. Order that is imposed from the top down is inherently fragile and will break. Decentralized regimes are more antifragile.

    Collapse
  2. Pohl

    For a second, I thought you were going to pitch a League of Democracies. Well said, as it turns out.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    I agree with Mr. Goldberg's assessment of China, Iran and Russia. That sounds about right.

    Today however, the biggest danger in the world is the USA turning authoritarian. If that happens, then it's game over for liberty and it's hard to see what would ever allow the human race to recover from that.

    The name given to this dystopian future is called, "post-liberal", and it's a very real possibility:

    https://www.salon.com/2022/11/21/the-postliberal-crackup-the-gops-post-midterms-civil-starts-with-the-new-right/

    People like Sohrab Ahmari are deadly freakin serious about establishing a dictatorship in the USA, and with our Conservative party turning populist, there remains an ideological vacuum that somebody like Ahmari can slide right into.

    To wit, I would like people to imagine what today would look like if a few thousand votes in a few states swung the other way last November and Trump won.

    For starters, we would not be worrying about Ukraine right now--it would have been long since conquered by Putin. No, the problem would be that Russian forces would be on the border of Poland and other NATO allies, and our president would be willing to trade NATO for a plum contract for Trump Tower Moscow.

    Most Trump voters, if you put the question to them that way, would not want the sort of rule that Vladimir Putin portends. But the question won't be put that way. Instead it will be put in a way that, say, National Review would put it, e.g. that "the libs" are somehow worse than Constitution being suspended by a murdering dictator like Putin.

    Mr. Goldberg is being a bit naive when asking if people will vote for a future involving a dictator: Fox News isn't going to explain it that way.

    Collapse
    1. Pohl

      Pat, It Can’t Happen Here (Twice). Well, I can’t rule out a turn to a successful caudillo eventually in our country’s lifecycle. But a Trump manque is more likely to arrive first. History will repeat as farce, then tragedy. I don’t care what Marx said.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Stevenkongju9

    One of the saddest examples of Authoritarianism is what has occurred in Myanmar. It had seemed that after 60 years of Authoritarian rule, the country was slowly, albeit imperfectly, emerging to take a place among the democratic world. That came tumbling down nearly two years ago when the Tatmadaw (military) snatched back total control eliminating the freedoms that had only recently been granted. The people there are brave and to this day struggling and dying for their freedom.

    Collapse
  5. Fidlerrich

    PS. If you believe, as you've said countless times, that humans are driven by enlightened self-interest, how can you say, "Authoritarianism comes naturally to humans," and then say, "fewer people look around at authoritarianism in the real world and think: That’s the future I want to be part of."

    Collapse
    1. GenZConservative

      Because as we are all little authoritarians at 5 years old, we don't know why that doesn't work. People only reject authoritarianism when they see it fail.

      Collapse
  6. Fidlerrich

    "Authoritarianism comes naturally to humans, while liberalism has to be taught—and fought for." That makes liberalism sound artificial, therefore unnatural. So, who shall impose this unnatural order on an unruly humanity? Are you sure, having put it that way, this is an argument you want to defend?

    Collapse
    1. GenZConservative

      As artificial as medicine, light after sunset, and the written word. Natural is not a synonym for desirable.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Rdoconnell

      Liberalism is unnatural. That doesn't meant much though. I think the distinction is more like "instinctual" vs "rational".

      Authoritarianism is instinctual whereas liberal democracy is more rational.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ed P

    The war in Ukraine while critically important of course, is nearly a side show for the real front: coordinated psychological, ideological and informational warfare to tank our liberal democracy, and therefore the world order. So that we might abide Putin, Xi and MbS’s tyranny another generation

    And its been FAR MORE EFFECTIVE THAN ANYONE WANTS TO ADMIT.

    We just has a stinkin coup attempt and still can’t seem to actually punish the ringleaders in any meaningful way. Manafort Stone Flynn and Bannon continue to crime spree and wage war on US democracy.

    Lets get it together fellas.

    Collapse
  8. DTruitt

    Alternatives often seem more attractive based upon “the grass is always greener …” principle.

    I still like the Winston Churchill quip, “Democracy is the worst form of government … except for all the others.”

    Collapse
  9. PatThomson

    Thanks for the smiley faces, Jonah.

    And, to you and yours, Happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas!

    Collapse
  10. Ben.Bobbitt

    Now if we could just get some politicians with sense and restore and even strengthen one of our most potent tools for advancing liberal democratic values - free trade. Fair trade, so that means China needs to go back in the box, but free trade with nations who play by the rules.

    Collapse
Load More